Kuroma Kuroma

perfly.dev scores 48/100 for AI Readiness

Perfly (perfly.dev) scores 48/100 (grade C) on AI Readiness, audited 16 Jul 2026. Its strongest area is Technical Optimization (84) and its weakest is AI Readiness (29); the biggest single gap is Question Coverage & FAQ Presence at 0/100 (No FAQ schema markup detected).

Audited URL: https://perfly.dev

48/100
Grade
C

This audit is 62 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 62 days ago

Is perfly.dev ready for AI search?

Partly: perfly.dev scores 48/100 (grade C). The two fixes that matter most are Add FAQ Schema Markup and Strengthen E-E-A-T Signals.

Category scores

This audit did not record which rubric version scored it, so it is not confirmed as the current 2026-08-13 rubric. Scores are only comparable within one rubric generation, so how much each check counts toward the total is left out. The checks on this page, their verdicts and their scores are exactly what that audit measured. A fresh audit of this site is scored on the current rubric.

On-Page Content 39
Technical Optimization 84
Authority Signals 51
AI Readiness 29

All 19 scored checks

Every check the published rubric scores, with what this audit found on the page.

On-Page Content

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Partial 52/100

    Found: 639 words, 65 paragraphs, 1 lists, 4 images (0 with alt text)

    • Content length (639 words) is below recommended minimum of 1,000 words
    • Limited use of lists for scannable content
    • 4 images missing alt text (e.g. /integrations/google-calendar.png, /integrations/github.svg, /integrations/jira.svg)
  • Question Coverage & FAQ Presence Fail 0/100

    No FAQ structure. 0 question headings. 0 questions detected in content

    • No FAQ schema markup detected
    • Few question-based headings
  • Structured Data Quality Needs work 30/100

    1 JSON-LD scripts. Schema types: Organization, WebSite, SoftwareApplication

  • AI Readability Score Partial 70/100

    Average 10 words/sentence. 0 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Pass 96/100

    H1: 1, H2: 5, H3: 8. Proper hierarchy.

  • Media Accessibility Fail 18/100

    Measures whether images, video, and charts have text equivalents AI can read.

    • 4 of 4 content images have no alt text, so their content is invisible to AI search.
    • 4 images have no caption, so AI can't read the takeaway of a chart or diagram without one.

Technical Optimization

Authority Signals

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 10/100

    Experience: 10/25. Expertise: 0/25. Authority: 0/25. Trust: 0/25

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Partial 70/100

    6 external links, 0 citation phrases, 5 statistics. Has references section.

  • Trust & Brand Signals Partial 64/100

    Present: SSL, Privacy Policy, Testimonials

    • No contact information easily accessible

AI Readiness

  • Answer Box Potential Fail 20/100

    0 definitions, 0 ordered lists, 0 tables

    • No FAQ structure detected
  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 22/100

    0 original data indicators, 2 percentages, 0 quotes.

  • Content Freshness Needs work 25/100

    No recent year references

    • No recent year references in content
    • No article publish/modified dates in metadata
  • Unique Value Proposition Fail 20/100

    4 unique value phrases, 0 differentiators, 0 case study mentions.

    • No case studies or concrete examples found
  • AI Discoverability Not measured 60/100

    Score: 60/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Pass 100/100

    639 words readable without JavaScript

This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. How the score works

Score your own site → Claim this card